superintendence which it might seem his duty to exercise over ecclesiastical affairs, was confined to the simple right of remonstrance. More than this is not asserted by moderate Catholics, nor can an impartial Protestant concede less.

We have also noticed some of the steps which were taken by early Popes, not only to extend the boundaries of their jurisdiction, but to establish an absolute authority within them. Their earliest success was the transfer to the Holy See of the Metropolitan privileges throughout the diocese. Among these the most important were the consecration of bishops, the convocation of synods, and the ultimate decision of appeals-privileges which might obviously be applied to restrain the power and independence of the bishops. During the fifth and sixth centuries some little progress was made towards that object. Valentinian III. made to Leo I. some concessions which were valuable, though that Pope had no means of enforcing them; but the acquisitions of Gregory the Great were more substantial, and that most especially so was the establishment of the appellant jurisdiction of the see. A more general subjection of Metropolitan to Papal authority was introduced by the Council of Frankfort; and such was the relative situation of the parties on the accession of Charlemagne to the empire. But presently afterwards, as if impatient of the tedious progress of gradual usurpation, the Spirit of Papacy called into existence, by an effort of amazing audacity, a new system of government, and a new code of principles, which led by a single step to the most absolute power. The false Decretals were imposed on the credulity* of mankind._'Still the moment was not yet arrived in which it was possible to enforce all the rights so boldly claimed on their authority; and though some ground was gained by Pope Nicholas I., their efforts were not brought into full operation till the pontificate of Gregory VII.

In recording some instances of the temporal interference of the Church, we have remarked the success of episcopal, as distinct from papal presumption, and observed the independence, as well as the force, with which the Councils of Bishops acted against the secular powers. The ninth has been peculiarly characterized as the Age of the Bishops; it becomes therefore more important to examine the relation in which they then stood, even in the moment of their highest glory, to the power which was now spreading in every direction from Rome. It has been mentioned that when the sons of Lewis the Meek were in revolt against their father, Pope Gregory IV. presented himself (as has been mentioned) at the camp of the rebels, and under pretence of mediation, favoured (as was thought) their party. On this occasion, certain French prelates, who remained faithful to Lewis, addressed an epistle to the Pope, wherein they accused him of having violated the oath which he had taken to the Emperor; they denied his power to excommunicate any person, or make any disposition in their dioceses, without their permission; they boldly declared that if he came with the intention of excommunicating them, he should return himself excommunicated; and even proceeded so far as to threaten him with deposition. The Pope was alarmed; but, on the assurance of his attendants that he had received power from God to superintend the affairs of all nations and the concord of all Churches, and that, with authority to judge every one, he was not himself subject to any judgment, he wrote in an

Hincmar was not, indeed, blindly submissive to the Decretals; but it was their authority which he questioned rather than their authenticity—proving that his national or episcopal spirit of independence was greater than his critical sagacity.

swer, that ecclesiastical is placed high above secular power, and that the obedience of the Bishops was due to him rather than to the Emperor; that he could not better discharge his oath than by restoring concord; and that none could withdraw themselves from the Church of Rome without incurring the guilt of schism. The irritation of the parties is sufficiently discovered in their letters; but their firmness was not put to trial; for the rebels obtained by treachery a temporary success, and the Pope returned to Italy without either pronouncing or receiving excommunication.

The occurrence which we shall next mention took place thirty years afterwards; and it is the more remarkable, because the two greatest ecclesiastics of that age, Nicholas I. and Hincmar of Rheims, were placed in direct opposition to each other. The circumstances were nearly the following. A Bishop of Soissons, named Rothadus, incurred the displeasure of Hincmar, and after being condemned in two Councils held at Soissons in 862, under the direction of the Metropolitan, was first excommunicated, and very soon afterwards deposed and imprisoned. Rothadus, on the first sentence, appealed to the see of Rome, and found a very willing and probably partial judge in Nicholas. The Pope instantly despatched to Hincmar a peremptory order, either to restore Rothadus within thirty days, or to appear at Rome in person or by legate for the determination of the difference, on pain of suspension from his ministry. In the year following, Hincmar sent Odo, Bishop of Beauvais, to Rome, with the commission to request the Pope's confirmation of the acts of the synod of Soissons. But Nicholas, on the contrary, rescinded its decisions, and demanded, with repeated menaces, the immediate liberation of Rothadus, in order to the personal prosecution of his appeal at Rome. Through the interference of Charles the Bald, the prisoner was released; and after some delays, the deputies of Hincmar also appeared before the pontifical tribunal. The decision was such as all probably anticipated: all the charges against Rothadus were ascribed to the malice and perfidy of his enemy; he was ordered to resume the episcopal vestments, and a legate It does was sent to escort him on his return to his country and his see. not appear, from the particulars* of this contest, that Hincmar and the Bishops who supported him went so far as to deny the right of a deposed Bishop to appeal to Rome against the sentence of his Metropolitan ; indeed, they rested their defence on much lower ground, and thus conceded that which was most important. At any rate, the triumph of Nicholas was complete; and though the right in question was first advanced by him, and on no more solid authority than the (forged) Decretals of the Ancient Pontiffs,' he prevailed with scarcely any difficulty against the most learned canonist and the most independent ecclesiastic of those days.

About five years after the restoration of Rothadus, Hincmar found himself once more in contest with the Holy Seet; and his zeal on this

Besides the ecclesiastical historians, see the Life of Nicholas in the Breviarium Pontif. Romanor. R. P. Francisci Pagi, tome ii. That Pope, in his Epistle Ad universos Galliæ Episcopos,' admits, however, that the authority of the Decretals was not yet universally received in the Gallican Church. We read in the same author, that Adrian II. commanded the Gallican Bishops to raise Actardus of Nantes to the first Metropolitan see which might be vacant; and that, in the year 871, he was raised to that of Tours, but with the addition-Rege, clero, ac populo postulantibus.

In 853, Hinemar had deposed a number of Clerks ordained by his predecessor, whose canonical right to the See was disputed. In 866, Pope Nicholas ordered a revision of that affair; Hincmar maintained the sentence vigorously; but Nicholas, having

occasion may possibly have been animated by the recollection of his former humiliation. His vigorous opposition to Adrian II., respecting the succession to the crown of Lorraine, has been already noticed; and if he failed when he would have vindicated the independence of the Church of France from Roman superintendence, his success was even more remarkable when he defended the rights of the throne from similar invasion.

The visit of John VIII. to France, during the year 878, certainly confirmed, and probably extended, papal authority in that country. Before the Council had assembled at Troyes, he obtained the consent of the king to some regulations, one of which was, that no metropolitan should be permitted to ordain, until he had received the pallium or vest from Rome. During the Session of the Council we observe the following declaration to have been made by Hincmar himself:-- In obedience to the Holy Canons, I condemn those whom the Holy See has condemned, and receive those whom it receives, and hold that which it holds in conformity with Scripture and the Canons.' The Bishops who were present professed the strictest unanimity with the Pontiff; and the good understanding which was then, perhaps, established between the Churches of Rome and France, and which assumed the inferiority *, if not the dependance of the latter, appears to have subsisted long, with no material interruption.

Hincmar died a few years afterwards. He was descended from a noble family; and the early part of his life he so divided between Character of the Court and the Cloister, and displayed so much ability and Hincmar. enthusiasm in the discharge of the duties attached to either situation, as to combine the practical penetration of a Statesman with the rigour of a zealous Ecclesiastic. He was raised to the See of Rheims in the year 845, at the age of thirty-nine, and filled it for nearly forty years with firmness and vigour. In the ninth century, when the mightiest events were brought about by ecclesiastical guidance, he stands among the leading characters, if, indeed, we should not rather consider him as the most eminent. He was the great Churchman of the age on all public occasions of weighty deliberation, at all public ceremonies of coronation or consecration, Hincmar is invariably to be found as the active and directing spirit. His great knowledge of canonical law enabled him to rule the Councils of the Clergy; his universal talents rendered him necessary to the state, and gave him more influence in political affairs than any other subject: while his correspondence † attests his close intercourse with all the leading characters Charles on his side, obtained once more a complete triumph, and restored the Ecclesiastics to their rank in the Church. In both these disputes it would appear that the popular voice was against Hincmar.

The following is the substance of an Address to the Pope, made by the Bishops at this Council-the original may be found in Baronius. Ann. 878, s. 17, &c.: We, the Bishops of Gaul and Belgium, your sons, servants, and disciples, deeply suffer through the wounds which have been inflicted upon our Holy Mother, the mistress of all Churches, and unanimously repeat the sentence which you have launched against your enemies, excommunicating those whom you have excommunicated, and anathematizing those whom you have anathematized...... And since we also have matter for lamentation in our own Churches, we humbly supplicate you to assist us with your authority, and promulgate an ordinance (Capitulum) to show in what manner we ought to act against the spoliators of the Church; that, being fortified by the censure of the Apostolical See, we may be more powerful and confident,' &c.

f Frodoard mentions 423 letters of Hincmar, besides many others not specified. He was present at thirty-nine important Councils, at most of which he presided. His history and character are very well illustrated by Guizot in his 28th Leçon de la Civil. en France.

of his age. In the management of his Diocese, he was no less careful to instruct and enlighten than strict to regulate; and while he issued and enforced his Capitularies of Discipline with the air and authority of a civil despot, he waged incessant warfare with ignorance. It is indeed probable that he possessed less theological learning than his less celebrated contemporary, Rabanus Maurus; but he had much more of that active energy of character so seldom associated with contemplative habits. It is also true that he was crafty, imperious, and intolerant; that he paid his sedulous devotions to the Virgin*, and was infected with other superstitions of his age. His occasional resistance to the see of Rome has acquired for him much of his celebrity; but if Divine Providence had so disposed, that Hincmar had been Bishop of Rome for as long a space as he was Primate of France, he would unquestionably have exalted papal supremacy with more courage, consistency, and success, than he opposed it.

Popish usurpations.

We have observed that one of the most successful means of papal usurpation within the Church was the encouragement of appeals to Rome. It is indeed scarcely possible to measure the advantages which the see derived from that practice; and perhaps we do not value it too highly when we ascribe to it chiefly a vague notion of the Pope's omnipotence, which seems to have made some impression among the laity during the ninth century. Before we quit this subject, we should mention a remonstrance from the pen of Hincmar, which was addressed to the Pope under the name of Charles the Bald, and towards the end of his life. In this letter the Emperor is made to complain, that it is no longer deemed sufficient that Bishops, condemned by their Metropolitans, should cross the Alps for redress, but that every Priest, who has been canonically sentenced by his Bishop, now hurries to Rome for a repeal of the sentence. The origin of appeals to Rome is traced to the Council of Sardica; but by that authority they were properly liable to two restrictions-they were permitted to Bishops only, and were necessarily determined on the spot. The inferior orders were amenable to their respective Bishops, who judged in conjunction with their Clergy; and the only lawful appeal from the decision was to a Provincial Council. The second restriction had been confirmed by the Canons of the African Church, which in former days had defended its independence against the aggressions of Rome, and which now furnished weapons to the Prelates of Gaul, invaded after so long an interval by the persevering ambition of the same adversary.

Another method of papal encroachment was the appointment of a Vicar in distant provinces, to whom the Pope delegated his assumed authority, and by whose acknowledgment the existence of that authority was in fact admitted.

In the year 876, John VIII. designated the Archbishop of Sens as Primate of the Gauls and Germany, and Vicar of the Pope for the Convocation of Councils and other ecclesiastical affairs; and especially to promulgate the pontifical edicts, and superintend their execution. The Bishops of France hesitated to receive the yoke so manifestly prepared for them; and on this occasion we again observe Hincmar of Rheims defending and directing their opposition. He protested before the assembled Council, that this attempt was contrary to the Holy Canons; he appealed to the regulations of Nice, which subjected every province to its own

*This appears from his epitaph, written by himself, in some very indifferent hexameter and pentameter verses.

Metropolitan, and confirmed the original privileges of the Churches; he fortified the decisions of Nice by the authority of St. Leo and other Popes; he denied that the particular jurisdiction which the Pontiff confessedly exercised over certain distant provinces (as Macedonia and parts of Illyria) absorbed the rights of the Metropolitans; and, while he admitted that the Popes had more than once established their Vicars in Gaul itself, he contended that the office was temporary, instituted for occasional and specific purposes, such as the prevention of simony, the conversion of unbelievers, the restoration of discipline, and that it ceased with the particular abuses which had made it necessary*. The weight of antiquity, which furnishes a conclusive argument in ignorant ages, was, without question, on the side of Hincmar. On the other hand, the Pope had engaged the Emperor in the defence of his claims; and, as it was one part of his policy to coalesce with the national hierarchy whenever the rights of princes could, be assailed with advantage, so was it another to draw the princes into his own designs against the power and independence of their Clergy.

And here it is proper to notice another privilege, which, though its origin may be traced to Gregory the Great, was little exercised by the Popes until the ninth, or the beginning of the tenth age. Hitherto the monasteries, with very few exceptions, were subject to the Bishop of the diocese in which they stood, and who in many cases had been their founders. Exemptions from episcopal jurisdiction were now granted with some frequency, and the establishments thus privileged acknowledged a direct dependence on the Pope. He had many motives for this policy, but that which most concerns our present subject is the following. To secure his triumph over the liberties of the Church, it was necessary to divide it; and his scheme of reducing the higher ranks of the Clergy was amply promoted by a practice which curtailed their authority in a very important branch, which transferred that authority to himself, and at the same time created lasting jealousy and dissension between the regular and secular orders.

Two other objects may be mentioned to which the ambition of Rome was steadily and effectually directed-to establish the principle that Bishops derived their power entirely from the Pope, and to prevent the convocation of Councils without his express command. Towards the accomplishment of the second, very great though very gradual progress was made during the ninth age by a series of usurpations, of which the earliest served as precedents whereon to found the practice. The greater obscurity and confusion of the tenth century were more favourable to the success of the first t; and if it be true that, even after that time, there were to be found some bolder Prelates, both in France and Germany, who disputed these and others among the pontifical claims, it cannot be questioned that they had then acquired so much prevalence, and had struck so deeply into the prejudices and habits of men, powerful hand alone was wanted to call them into light and action, and to give them the most fatal efficacy.

that a

The preceding pages have presented to us a variety of incidents hitherto nearly novel in the history of the Church, but with which experience will presently render us familiar. We have been astonished by the arrogant claims of the Episcopal Order and the extent of political power

Fleury, H. E. lib. lii., s. 33. Frodoardus (in a passage cited by Baronius, Ann. 876. s. 24) admits the powerful resistance of Hinemar on this occasion.

+ See Mosheim, Cent. x., p. 2, c. 2.